"I got to be honest, I personally think he's an idiot,'' White said of Bettman. "Since he's come in I think he's done nothing but damage the game."

Well that'll increase the candor and good vibes that have led to negotiations potentially reaching a two-week freeze.

More White, from the Freep:

"If you think of all the moves he's made," White said, "teams that are all struggling seem to be the teams that he put in places where there's not viable markets for hockey. Three work stoppages -- I don't know if he's in control of the owners or what he's saying, but I think it's only seven of the owners that have to agree on something to have something pass. You'd think it'd be at least 50%. It just doesn't seem like they're running a democratic process, if you will."

he's done nothing but damage the game? orly? white should be writing love notes to bettman for helping him make almost 3 mill a year - not calling him an idiot because of 3 lockouts that he had no control in preventing. it's funny to hear a player complain about expansion, though.

BigMcK wrote:I am in the same boat as Guinness on this: Care enough to hold interest in what's going on, losing that interest as time goes by.

Werd, brah.

Seriously though... this particular CBA struggle has done nothing but reinforce in my mind that sports... hockey... the Pens... as much as I love it/them - it's just a pass-time to me, and to be honest I have plenty other things I can do with my time. In fact, plenty of other things I *should* be doing with my time.

Yeah, I miss my *distraction*... but they are actively divesting me, at this point.

Steve wrote:Most likely though, I will come back - but I think I'll be a different fan. I'll become more of a casual fan.

Yeah. I think that's the risk the league is taking.

I think there is alot more anger this time - It's difficult to predict what will happen with the fans - I guess it depens on how long this goes. I really don't see either side giving in, anytime soon. And as I feared early on, I think this could drag on into next season as well. I hope I'm wrong.

Also, easy to say in hindsight - but if the season is lost, even more props to Shero for moving quickly on the Staal issue.....

According to this it appears that "losing money" at least in one particular case is just creative accounting. It makes one wonder how much of the accounting is accurate and how much is done to not pay taxes.

According to this it appears that "losing money" at least in one particular case is just creative accounting. It makes one wonder how much of the accounting is accurate and how much is done to not pay taxes.

According to this it appears that "losing money" at least in one particular case is just creative accounting. It makes one wonder how much of the accounting is accurate and how much is done to not pay taxes.

I'm surprised people ignored this...

So the owners aren't really "losing" money...

I'm not surprised you took the bait. At least, you have implied that you have.

Perhaps you can explain to the group how this relates to the Florida Panthers and only the Florida Panthers and their profitability.

To me, this reads as: "The management group and the arena make money." ...in the somewhat ambiguous language used there, I'm not sure I get how it suggests the Panthers are profitable. Perhaps economics is not my strong suit or not the author's...

According to this it appears that "losing money" at least in one particular case is just creative accounting. It makes one wonder how much of the accounting is accurate and how much is done to not pay taxes.

I'm surprised people ignored this...

So the owners aren't really "losing" money...

I'm not surprised you took the bait. At least, you have implied that you have.

Perhaps you can explain to the group how this relates to the Florida Panthers and only the Florida Panthers and their profitability.

To me, this reads as: "The management group and the arena make money." ...in the somewhat ambiguous language used there, I'm not sure I get how it suggests the Panthers are profitable. Perhaps economics is not my strong suit or not the author's...

The key to the article is

The 2010 auditor’s report, which is available at the county website, shows a company that averaged $9.9 million per fiscal year between 1999 and 2008 (discounting the 2004-05 lockout year, for a moment). Those revenues dipped to just a hair over $1 million in 2005, the year of the NHL lockout. Interestingly, 2005 – due to the lockout – is the one year where Forbes doesn’t provide an estimate that shows the Panthers losing money, and it’s the lowest revenue-generating year the auditor records.

That’s either an incredibly interesting coincidence, or evidence that the Panthers themselves help make the arena as profitable as it is.

Basically, he's making a leap in saying that if the Panthers are losing money then SSE's revenue should've went up instead of down in 2005. Instead, it dropped fairly significantly which implies that the Panthers aren't losing money.

According to this it appears that "losing money" at least in one particular case is just creative accounting. It makes one wonder how much of the accounting is accurate and how much is done to not pay taxes.

I'm surprised people ignored this...

So the owners aren't really "losing" money...

I'm not surprised you took the bait. At least, you have implied that you have.

Perhaps you can explain to the group how this relates to the Florida Panthers and only the Florida Panthers and their profitability.

To me, this reads as: "The management group and the arena make money." ...in the somewhat ambiguous language used there, I'm not sure I get how it suggests the Panthers are profitable. Perhaps economics is not my strong suit or not the author's...

The key to the article is

The 2010 auditor’s report, which is available at the county website, shows a company that averaged $9.9 million per fiscal year between 1999 and 2008 (discounting the 2004-05 lockout year, for a moment). Those revenues dipped to just a hair over $1 million in 2005, the year of the NHL lockout. Interestingly, 2005 – due to the lockout – is the one year where Forbes doesn’t provide an estimate that shows the Panthers losing money, and it’s the lowest revenue-generating year the auditor records.

That’s either an incredibly interesting coincidence, or evidence that the Panthers themselves help make the arena as profitable as it is.

Basically, he's making a leap in saying that if the Panthers are losing money then SSE's revenue should've went up instead of down in 2005. Instead, it dropped fairly significantly which implies that the Panthers aren't losing money.

The update says that they only took data from one side of the business, the operating company. So there still is another side of losses to subtract in theory. Two points in that: first, the NHLPA knows this and so do the other leagues and it's not an issue. There are other sides to running a franchise that some teams pull in revenue from. Second not all teams have either lucrative arena deals or big enough markets to sustain 100 concerts, some teams even share buildings. the Pens have a solid arena deal and pull in some events but not nearly what some other markets do. these help balance out some losses but it's not an overriding factor league wide.

BigMcK wrote:If the NHL plays games this season, will you be less likely to attend fewer games as you can; attend as many as you can; attend none?

(don't know how to do a poll post)

My vote for this season is that I am not rushing back to see any game, but would go if the Pens played local to me.

I would attend the same ammount as always, if someone asks me to go with them i wouldn't turn it down or if someone gives me tickets i will be just as inclined to go as usual. If i can buy tockets at face value i would still buy them. If i thought boycotting the games would do any good i would do it but i would think it won't. Actually i might be more inclined to go just since i am more jonesing for hockey.

That's one of the many implications you could make from that. The link premise was that "owners aren't really losing money" and in the article, it read that there's an outside chance that the Panthers might not lose money, maybe...well, if you squint really hard and do a lot of guessing...

Unfortunately, these reports and audits are tied to other companies and management with other factors...it doesn't specifically relate to the Florida Panthers and their profitability...

But sure, why not, this confirms that all owners are lying about all revenue...game. blouses.

mikey287 wrote:But sure, why not, this confirms that all owners are lying about all revenue...game. blouses.

It doesn't, but it does illustrate how the HRR numbers and reports from Forbes can be misleading.

Forbes is also a guessing game. It doesn't have NHL contacts that anyone is aware of. Just estimates. I don't see how it illustrates that HRR numbers are misleading. That is a serious, serious leap and the linked article provides no more tangible evidence of such a claim than you saying it, or me saying it on a Penguins message board.

let's say you own 2 or 3 bars in town, one of which is losing money. and let's say that all 3 bars enjoy a price break on beer and liqour from the distributor due to the amount of product you order and that without the one bar that's losing money, the others wouldn't qualify for the price break. it's then safe to say that owning the one bar is actually helping the other 2 make money by lowering their cost of goods sold. BUT the first bar is still losing money. You, as owner of all the bars, may be doing fine. but the first bar, taken individually, is still losing money.

mikey287 wrote:But sure, why not, this confirms that all owners are lying about all revenue...game. blouses.

It doesn't, but it does illustrate how the HRR numbers and reports from Forbes can be misleading.

Forbes is also a guessing game. It doesn't have NHL contacts that anyone is aware of. Just estimates. I don't see how it illustrates that HRR numbers are misleading. That is a serious, serious leap and the linked article provides no more tangible evidence of such a claim than you saying it, or me saying it on a Penguins message board.

Sorry, I guess I'm jumping all over the place here. What I'm referring to for HRR is

Perhaps I should not have been surprised, because hockey-related revenue is defined in such a way as to show losses: owners have generous deduction allowances – in some cases, as with television broadcasts, the owners can deduct up to 100 percent of revenues as a “direct cost” – and certain forms of revenue (including many of the government subsidies teams receive) are not included in the calculation.

This part didn't involve any sort of monetary figures, just business practices. Say a team claimed 100% of a $25-million TV deal; without knowing that they claimed the entire amount you would assume the team's revenue was $12.5-million less than it actually was based off HRR.

First HRR is defined in the CBA. It includes percentages of revenues that go toward other tickets and events. something like the luxury boxes that get concerts. The reason I bring this up is it is of no surprise to the NHLPA. It's not an issue - how they define HRR is an issue but the fact teams make some money other ways is not.

Point being all other leagues operate the same way.

The players associations understand that the team aspects help build new arena and stadiums that they are not 100% vital. Especially in the larger markets. Kansas City is doing just ok enough.

the issues again from the unions is what percentages to and types of revenue to split, not that there will not be a split.

If this was a major issue at all it would be out into the PR wars and would be reported on more often and in depth, this is not an unknown.

The reporter from the Florida article made many mistakes including leaving out an entire side of the business, and also a vital error in assuming that after 3 major league strikes in the past 3 seasons it was HIM who found this smoking gun and not the thousands of other reports, executives, lawyers and accountants involved.

A fella who used to play goal for my beer league team and is now a journalist living in Florida posted on Facebook that he spoke with the owner of the TB Lightning this morning and he said that he felt the lockout would be over soon. Probably before January.

So the Flyers are getting antsy and are not as supportive now (per thepensblog) of reigning in salaries quite as far and want a deal done. I say: Of course they do. What do they care. They make money and try to sign everyone to absurd contracts.

It also state the Penguins might join forces with them. Not sure how they can join forces other than for PR reasons. The Pens want to side up with a team that circumvents rules of the cap and doesnt want to reign in salaries as far so in the end they can be less competitive and make less money?

Ok, got it. Makes perfect sense.

I hate the lockout as much as anyone but if the owners cave see you again in 7 years, hopefully we can save this thread to just update some posts therefore saving us all some carpel tunnel.

BurghersAndDogsSports wrote:So the Flyers are getting antsy and are not as supportive now (per thepensblog) of reigning in salaries quite as far and want a deal done. I say: Of course they do. What do they care. They make money and try to sign everyone to absurd contracts.

It also state the Penguins might join forces with them. Not sure how they can join forces other than for PR reasons. The Pens want to side up with a team that circumvents rules of the cap and doesnt want to reign in salaries as far so in the end they can be less competitive and make less money?

Ok, got it. Makes perfect sense.

I hate the lockout as much as anyone but if the owners cave see you again in 7 years, hopefully we can save this thread to just update some posts therefore saving us all some carpel tunnel.

We'll see another lockout then regardless, that much has been conceded by pretty well every hockey insider and journalist covering the lockout.